In 2010 Spain enacted a most civil set of laws with regard to smoking in public places. Half of the restaurants in every major city for example, were allowed to declare themselves either smoking or non-smoking restaurants. So was it as well with tapas bars, regular bars and lounges. Fair enough in my opinion, as this allowed everyone his/her option.

As of 1 January that law has been rescinded and Spain has now undertaken some of the most draconic of anti-smoking laws, those prohibiting smoking in nearly all enclosed public places, those including restaurants, tapas bars, bars, casinos, airports, discotheques and even some out-of-door spaces.

My problem with all of this reduces to one set of facts –

-it is legal to plant tobacco seed-it is legal to grow tobacco-it is legal to process that tobacco-it is legal to manufacture cigarettes-it is legal to sell cigarettes-it is legal to purchase cigarettes-it is illegal to smoke those cigarettes in nearly all places but the privacy of one's home (and in some cases ,even illegal in your own home if your windows are open and your nearest neighbor is closer to you than 50 meters (approximately 150 feet)

In South Australia it is illegal to smoke in workplaces and in enclosed public spaces. "Enclosed public spaces" means if it has walls and a roof - including beer gardens or patio-style "outdoor" cafes with walls and a roof. It's been like this for a while. There is some variation in the law between the states in Australia but on the whole this country is moving toward being smoke free.

For what it's worth, a study by a university in Spain, using Spanish costs, etc. found that a pack of cigarettes costs up to $150 US when medical costs, lost wages, etc are figured in. Too much, apparently, for legislators in that country.

A new study has found that once you factor in health-care and early-death costs of smoking, each pack of cigarettes costs up to $150.

The study, published in the Spanish Journal of Public Health, used Spain's public health and labour data to crunch the numbers.

"Public policy plays a crucial role in the prevention of smoking and improving health of the population," the study reads. "The estimated cost of premature death per package of tobacco is a key element in the cost-effectiveness of prevention polices and tobacco control."

The study examined average lost wages, cost of health care, social costs, and the economic impacts of lost retail sales to determine the total cost of smoking per pack of cigarettes.

The study found that the average cost of a pack of cigarettes was higher for men than women, but this was largely due to a difference in average wages and a difference in the number of cigarettes an addicted smoker is likely to consume.

For men, the average pack of cigarettes costs approximately $150, while the price is roughly $106 for women.

The study was conducted at the Polytechnic University of Cartagena in Spain.

None of my not heavy smoking friends suffer from the current Israeli law, so Spain is in the right direction. I remember well all this pseudo separation, it never really worked and we always had to breath smoke in restaurants, fortunately no longer.

I take it that the problem here is not the fact that they are making smoking illegal but rather the fact that the conglomerates are still able to produce and make the cigarette's that can go on to other countries? I think that smoking and even to some extent alcohol consumption lead to many unneeded death's every year. Some form of regulation is needed but then the countries making the laws have the big tobacco companies to thank during the campaign trail so not so easy to slap their wrist's rather target the end user. I'm all for making smoking illegal simply because of the fact that secondary tobacco smoke kill's too. You don't need to smoke to feel the effects.

Smoking may indeed "annoy" a great many people but a good deal of research is starting to show that passive smoking has a minimal impact on the health of those exposed to second-hand smoke. See, for example, the article at http://articles.sfgate.com/2003-05-16/n ... ing-spouse

It's about freedom and choice. I don't smoke, in fact I have never had a cigarette in my life (I do enjoy the occasional cigar), but for there to be sweeping laws, prohibiting smoking in private establishments, like someone's restaurant or bar, it is taking away freedoms.

Noone is making you work in a specific office, or eat in a restaurant or bar - it's your choice to go in there, and if you don't wnat to smell smoke, go somewhere else. Capitalism will solve the rest, and we'll see which bars are more succesful, and bar owners can make a choice - this isnt like a public/government building - it is someone's store, and they should have final say

Daniel Rogov wrote:but a good deal of research is starting to show that passive smoking has a minimal impact on the health of those exposed to second-hand smoke. See, for example, the article at http://articles.sfgate.com/2003-05-16/n ... ing-spouse

Daniel:

Please. If "a good deal of research is starting to show that passive smoking has a miniml impact on health" then how come you keep citing the same article from EIGHT years ago, that quotes an absurdly poorly conducted study about passive smoke. Where is your "good deal of research?" In fact, there is NO significant body of research that denies the ills of passive smoke. There is an ever increasing body of well conducted research that documents our ever expanding knowledge of just how bad second hand smoke is.

NO respected scientist with any credibility in this field believes that the evils of passive smoke are exaggerated.

I yield to no one in my respect for your all encompassing knowledge of food and wine. When it comes to medicine you should quit now while you are behind. The facts are simply not on your side on this one.

I claim no medical expertise whatever but I do claim a certain ability to evalue research for validity and replicability. The American Cancer Association disowns the particular study in question but one wonders if they would not have to disavow any research the results of which offer possibile contradictions to their own de rigueur opinion.

I cannot help but wonder if much of the passive-smoking research may not have something in common with those who advise women who are pregnant to avoid wine, not only during the first trimester of pregnancy but even for several months before becoming pregnant (an amusing possibility one must say). Something akin for example to how those in the anti-alcohol movement and those who would preserve the paternalistic aspects of society ignore a modicum of research that indicates that a small amount of wine consumption may even have positive effects on the fetus.

Indeed I am not advocating "smoking at will" in all places but when it comes to banning smoking in public parks?...or in banning smoking in one's garden because it may impact on one's neighbors? ....or in a law that allows smoking in one's own home but only if the windows are closed?

As much as I may be a smoker, I have no emotional investment in smoking. I even agree entirely that anyone who smokes more than one or two cigarettes daily is behaving foolishly. I also agree that smokers should respect the rights of non-smokers. if I do have an emotional involvement it is in seeking research that has both validity and replicability and is backed by uninterested parties.

For men, the average pack of cigarettes costs approximately $150, while the price is roughly $106 for women.

I have a problem with that data. Putting this in another way let us assume that a sixty year old heavily smoking male has smoked an average of three packs of cigarettes a day since his 15th birthday. That translates to 49,275 packages of cigarettes which in turn means that society will spend $7,391,250 on that man's lost production and health care above and beyond the norm for a non-smoker. Sheesh....even if takes the guy a decade to die from his cancer or emphysema that's just a bit far out.

Joel D Parker wrote:... I think your pro-smoking campaign, one might even call it a crusade, is bound to fail. Give it a rest, and quit smoking like the rest of the thinking planet.

Not at all a campaign on my part. In fact, I strongly advise people not to smoke and that largely because it is not only bad for one's health but can be truly catastrophic. I am also fully for the rights of non-smokers.

All that I am seeking is a bit of restraint in too many assumptions about the impact of second-hand smoke, the vast majority of the studies trying to demonstrate this being from distinctly partisan bodies. I am surely never tell anyone that smoking is "good for them" More than that, I fully respect that my smoking may annoy people and try not to put others in a situation where I will be annoying them. There are, however, huge differences between annoying someone and threatening their well-being.

I'''ll make you guys a deal. Show me valid and replicable research studies from any of the medical schools or epidemeology departments of Johns Hopkins University, Columbia University, the University of Geneva, or l'Ecole Superieure des Hautes Etudes that demonstrates the dangers of second-hand smoke (passive smoking if you prefer) and I may very well re-consider my point of view.

And, if you account for inflation over that 45 year period, and for future costs, the numbers don't seem so far out of line to me.

I have no idea how sound the Spanish study is -- but the Spanish Government certainly is finding it difficult to meet health care costs; there is no doubt that cigarette smoking is a major cost factor, and prevention can make a significant difference.

Would that smokers could bear the full cost of their habit -- rather than shifting much of it to non-smokers. The philosophic arguments would then be much more interesting.

I understand your concern. However, there are hundreds of independent studies that document histological (i.e., cellular) changes in people who are exposed to passive smoke. The science is NOT speculative, and not influenced by emotion or politics. The vast majority of studies are NOT from partisan bodies. It is quite evidence-based and not doubted by anyone with a reasonable knowledge of the medicine of the issue. Again, you are letting your emotions get in the way. If you want to smoke, go ahead. It's your body and your business. To put it somewhat crudely: I'm a surgeon - you and your smoking buddies are keeping my children fed and clothed. But stop denying the facts. Your passive smoke harms and often kills those who are exposed to it. Period.

We may debate the issue of at what point the authorities have the right to exert their power to limit your smoking. However, that debate must be based on the incontrovertible fact that passive smoking is very harmful. What politicians have the right to do with that data is a legitimate subject of debate. The data itself is not, unless you can present an equal body of valid contradictory data. At this point in the 21st century, you cannot.

And if the data is prejudiced, where is the opposing data - other than a laughable study from eight years ago?

That a research study is eight years old does not mean that it is passe or invalid. If I am not mistaken many of the most significant epidemeological studies on disease are far older than that. More than this, any study regarding smoking should be controlled for the impact of "urban living" as it relates to items such as air pollution (easy enough to conduct a parallel study in fully rural areas).

Let me please remind us that there were times, not all that long ago, when many well intentioned medical practitioners believed that male masturbation would cause later problems with virility? Oh yes, and a good many studies that indicated that the vast majority of women did not masturbate at all?

All that I am trying to say is that the "accepted wisdom" is not necessarily the most valid wisdom. In that spirit, I repeat my earlier offer: "Show me valid and replicable research studies from any of the medical schools or epidemeology departments of Johns Hopkins University, Columbia University, the University of Geneva, or l'Ecole Superieure des Hautes Etudes that demonstrates the dangers of second-hand smoke (passive smoking if you prefer) and I may very well re-consider my point of view".

You are beginning to make me believe that you are a member of the flat earth society.

I will be happy to take you up on your "challenge." The facts are simply not on your side here. I am "travelling" and have limited computer access to the medical literature. Rest assured, upon my return, I will deluge you with articles. However, a brief 90 second journey to the website of Harvard's School of Public Health will quickly show you a plethora of recent studies to prove you are on the wrong side of this debate.

In response to your statement about the 2003 study you keep quoting: True, the date of the study is not a statement about its validity. However, a quick review of it is enough to show that its data are, to say the least, highly suspect. A valid study is reproducible. That study is not, and has not been reproduced. On the other hand, ever since the initial reports about the harm of passive smoke, the data has been shown to be reproducible, and every year new studies and new data are published to support the hypothesis. The scientific journals in the years following the 2003 study about which you are so fond have not been replete with confirmatory data.

In full sincerity, I look forward to receiving the links. As to the "flat earth society" - that was never my thing*. I was far more in favor of the Procrastinator's Society. Unfortunately they went belly-up because nobody bothered to either update their site or to pay their dues.

BestRogov

*Well, I once did write about a fine restaurant on an unpaved and rather treacherous road located in the village of Kfar Ruth that if you missed the restaurant and travelled an additional kilometer you would surely fall of the edge of the world.